Talk:R's messenger
Should we do a plural? What if we change it to "R's messenger''s''? That way, we don't have to make two completely separate articles. We could rework it to reflect how R were controlling students to do their biddings and adorning the red robes? Maester Martin (talk) 16:17, September 7, 2018 (UTC) :Bump. Maester Martin (talk) 11:22, September 9, 2018 (UTC) ::This may be a good idea in my opinion. Or maybe it could be turned into a disambiguation page?--Rodolphus (talk) 11:32, September 9, 2018 (UTC) :::For future reference, I think it has already been said by other users when the action was demonstrated elsewhere, but figured I'd start by reminding and concurring that opinion, that this is not the proper way to "bump" for attention, especially when the timing was so close; I probably wouldn't have commented on it were the bump left after 2 weeks or 2 months without getting a response, but 2 days? :::On the matter itself. I think it is a great idea, in the sense that I don't think this page should be fully merged with Ben's as some had attempted to do. I'm indifferent for the plural part at the moment though. Currently, my working theory (which I'd be glad to be proven wrong) is that the cloak itself is the cause of those behavior; I'm hoping it's not at all a Horcrux, but the lost of memory attribute unfortunately made my brain kept going back to it. Alas it is just a theory. I'm honestly voting for leaving the article the way it is (in terms of article title and no merging proceeded) and wait until we get a bigger and fuller picture of what's going on. :::Meantime, it's up to editors whether they want to document the latest cloak figure's action on this article or Unidentified Dark Wizard; I don't mind still listing them on this one, because who's to know if Ben had been the one and only cloaked figure prior to him getting caught? :::That's just my opinion on the matter though. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 18:20, September 23, 2018 (UTC) For now, I suppose it wouldn't be too ''far-fetched if the cloaked attacker who threatened the MC the first time later controlled Ben somehow during the attempted murder so that their own identity would remain secret and their schemes could continue should the attempt fail. After all, "I told you", was something the seond cloaked wizard said, as if he/she had addressed the player before. This, however, could ''also ''merely be a ploy to avoid suspicion towards the actual culprit, having a several people talk and act as one person. I think it more likely by far that whoever adorns the cloak are acting under the influence of the Imperius Curse, lest we are to assume some sort of "Horcrux-cloak" all of a sudden would have the power to possess whoever wears it the instant they put it on and the fragment of soul assumes control. This is also because I doubt that the teachers at Hogwarts would not have examined the cloak and discovered it if it was imbued with magical properties of any kind. They most certainly would not allow it to just disappear or throw it away for whomever Ben claimed to be controlled by to find it again. More likely, there are more than one such attire. Maester Martin (talk) 06:59, September 24, 2018 (UTC) :Folks, let's revisit this discussion =D :After AND Chapter 20, do you guys think there should ''still be separate articles on individuals (this one and Unidentified Dark Wizard) after the reveal that they very well may just be unfortunate victims of the Imperius Curse? And instead of then merging the 2 to cover "Imperiused victims of Peter Pettigrew" (the assumption may be wrong, I'm not claiming it to be a fact), can people consider to hold off any merges and wait until the entire plot is revealed? I am hoping Jam City actually has an arc to explain why Pettigrew is needed to be incorporated, beyond the notion to have a cool easter egg and neatly wrapping it up by having Jacob's sibling being Obliviated, explaining why the MC wasn't being a shady person for not reporting a dead person to still be alive, but because they (as of now) have no memory of it. ("R" for Rat?) :Back on track, my point is, even if Pettigrew turns out to be irrelevant (revealed to not be R), I think those Imperiused victims is undeniably a part of a bigger plot, and in this case, perhaps when said plot is revealed, using the treatment like Plot to steal the Philosopher's Stone & Plot to open the Chamber of Secrets is more suitable? Covering the actual plot while also documenting there were those messengers and how they chronologically correlate with each other. :It's just a thought. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 23:24, March 5, 2019 (UTC)